Part 5: Rethinking Political Violence Insurance — What AFB 1–8 Leaves Out

Demystifying the AFB 1–8 Series — Part 5 of 5 - Read parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 here

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or insurance advice. Coverage is subject to the specific terms, conditions, and exclusions of each policy.

This series is based on the AFB 1–8 political violence wording, widely used in the Lloyd’s and specialty market. Other forms — such as Hiscox 1–5 — follow similar structures, but we use AFB 1–8 as a reference point.

It’s time for political violence insurance to evolve.

AFB 1–8 has long been the backbone of political violence insurance in the global specialty market. It’s tried, tested, and familiar. But in a world of shifting threats — urban unrest, disinformation warfare, and hybrid conflict — today’s risk landscape is moving faster than many policy wordings can keep up.

In this final post in our series, we explore what AFB 1–8 doesn’t address, what risk managers are asking for, and how political violence coverage can be reimagined for a more dynamic, real-time world.

Political violence has evolved — has your insurance kept up?

🔍 Where AFB 1–8 Falls Short

While technically sound, AFB 1–8 (and similar market wordings) leave real-world exposure gaps that today’s businesses can’t afford to ignore.

1. No Cover Without Physical Damage

AFB 1–8 responds only when there’s direct physical damage. That means:

• Denial of access, state-imposed shutdowns, and curfews are not covered unless they cause property loss

• Revenue disruption from civil unrest without damage offers no recovery

• In fragile economies, this is often where the real impact lies

Yes endorsements to the policy can be made for non-damage BI or CBI

2. Silence on Disinformation and Digital Disruption

We live in an age where:

• A single tweet can spark a riot

• Deepfakes can destabilise a region

• Hacktivist groups can trigger political fallout

But without tangible property damage, traditional PV insurance doesn’t respond — even when the financial loss is significant.

3. Rigid, Siloed Perils in a Fluid World

AFB 1–8 defines eight distinct perils. But modern events rarely stay in their lane.A protest can turn into a riot. A riot into a rebellion. A rebellion into war. If a policyholder only buys Peril 1 (Terrorism) or Perils 1–2, coverage can drop off just as the event escalates.

📌 What Risk Managers Are Asking For

Today’s risk managers and brokers are looking for:

• Coverage that reflects escalation, not just event type

• Protection for economic impact, even when damage is avoided

• Region-specific wordings that address actual threat environments

• More intelligent triggers, supported by data and early-warning systems

• Greater flexibility in claims, especially where proximate cause is blurred

The market is beginning to realise that the future of PV insurance isn’t just about indemnifying buildings — it’s about maintaining operational continuity.

🔄 Reimagining the Product: What Could Come Next?

💡 1. Intent-Based Coverage

Rather than boxing events into eight static perils, rethink the model based on political intent — e.g. any hostile act driven by political, ideological, or civil motivation.

This could unlock protection for:

• Targeted vandalism during protests

• Unofficial militia activity

• Government-led disruptions of private enterprise

🌍 2. Region-Specific Wordings

One-size-fits-all doesn’t work. Coverage should reflect:

• The realities on the ground (e.g. SRCC is far more likely than terrorism in some markets)

• Local regulatory and security dynamics

• Patterns of unrest, civil fragility, and insurgent influence

📲 3. Data-Driven Triggers

Integrate real-time data to support pre-claims and escalation alerts:

• Social media activity spikes

• State-imposed movement restrictions

• Political advisory updates from foreign governments

• Threat monitoring from open-source intelligence (OSINT)

This would allow insurers and clients to prepare before the damage happens — and give credibility to claims where proximate cause is murky.

🧭 Looking Ahead

We’re not calling for any single policy wording — AFB 1–8, Hiscox 1–5, or others — to be abandoned. These wordings have served as a foundation for decades. But across the market, today’s PV insurance structures are often too rigid for the volatility businesses now face.

Simply adding sub-limits or extensions isn’t enough if the core framework relies on outdated assumptions:

• That political violence is isolated

• That escalation is linear

• That damage is the only trigger for loss

As threats evolve, so should the tools we use to manage them.

At Resilient Frontiers, we believe political violence insurance should move from being a static, event-based product to a flexible, strategy-aligned solution. It should reflect how instability actually unfolds — and how modern businesses experience loss.

📣 Final Thought

If your PV insurance is built on tick-box perils, you may be more exposed than you think.

The future of this product isn’t just about indemnifying bricks and mortar. It’s about building resilience — operational, reputational, and financial — in a world that’s anything but stable.

Stay Resilient